MRC: Requiring Catholic Colleges To Follow Labor Law = 'Attack' Topic: Media Research Center
The federal government is attacking Catholic colleges! The Media Research Center says it, so it must be true!
Paul Wilson provides the shocking details ina June 15 MRC Culture & Media Institute article headlined "Media Ignore Labor Attacks on Catholic Colleges," asserting that the federal government is leading an "assault on religious freedom."
And how are the feds conducting this dastardly attack, you ask? Is it oppression? Arrests? Enhanced interrogation?
Um, not exactly. The NLRB is merely ruling that professors at Catholic schools have the right to form labor unions.
That, of course, is not the way Wilson portrays it. Rather, he asserts that the NLRB ruled that the two Catholic schools in question "lacked enough of a religious character to be exempt from provisions of federal labor law," meaning that the schools were "forced by the NLRB to recognize an adjunct faculty union."
What Wilson doesn't tell you, however, is the reasoning behind the NLRB's rulings. For instance, in the case of Manhattan College, the NLRB noted that the school receives no significant financial assistance from the Catholic Church or the Catholic sect it's affiliated with, that the school has declared itself to be "strikingly different from that of parochial schools and Catholic high schools where indoctrination in the faith and insistence on religious observance is seen as part of their mission," and that it asserts that its has "no intention" of imposing "Church affiliation and religious observance as a condition for hiring or admission, to set quotas based on religious affiliation, to require loyalty oaths, attendance at religious services, or courses in Catholic theology."
Similarly, in the case of Wilson's other example, Xavier University, the NLRB noted that the school's articles of incorporation "does not contain any reference to religion, God, Catholicism, Sisters of Mercy, or CMHE; instead it speaks only to the purpose of education," that the school "does not investigate the religious beliefs of its students, faculty, or trustees," and that it "has no requirement for faculty, including adjuncts, to espouse or emphasize Catholicism in their teachings or imbue students with the tenets of the Catholic faith."
The real question here is why these institutions are trying to hide behind their religious affiliations to apparently mistreat their faculty members to the point that they feel they must form a union. Instead, Wilson tries to portray this as a religious freedom issue. How is mistreating your employees an issue of religious freedom? It's almost as silly as that nutrition "ministry" WorldNetDaily loves so much that's crying religious discrimination when the feds want it to prove its claims that its nutritional supplements cure cancer.
So, no, the NLRB is not attacking Catholic colleges; it's merely ordering them to recognize faculty unions. Wilson never explains why that's a bad thing.
The Week In Tim Graham's Gay-Bashing Topic: Media Research Center
We've detailed how Tim Graham has emerged as the Media Research Center's chief gay-basher. Here's what he's done on the subject over the past week:
On June 15, he freaked out about "gay Russ Feingold-donating PR man" who questioned the idea that Romney was a hockey fan.
On June 16, he declared that CNN's Don Lemon was a "gay-vangelist" and appeared to be offended that Lemon "'learned' that the Bible should never be taken literally" after he prayed to God to change his sexuality, and he definitely was offended that Lemon "compared gay acceptance to slavery, segregation and female suffrage."
On June 17, Graham asserted that GLAAD are "gay censors" who want "to drive any conservative point of view off CNN and other cable news networks." As if Graham doesn't want the gay point of view driven off the air.
Farah: Ron Paul Doesn't Hate Gays Enough Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ron Paul doesn't want the federal government involving itself with the institution of marriage. I would agree if the federal government had not already involved itself by helping to destroy the institution through federal court decisions. When the courts exceed their authority, Congress not only has power to correct them, it has the absolute duty to do so.
There is only one reason the marriage laws of the several states have been rewritten – because of state and federal courts that involved themselves in legislating rather than adjudicating.
It started in 2003 with the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case that struck down anti-sodomy laws in a sovereign republic. It continued in Massachusetts when the Supreme Judicial Court ordered the Massachusetts legislature to legalize same-sex marriage. (It continued, by the way, when then-Gov. Mitt Romney capitulated to the out-of-control court by ordering state and county employees to begin performing those marriages instead of challenging the court's egregious excesses.) It continued again when an activist federal judge (one whom, as a homosexual living with a same-sex partner, had a recusable conflict of interest in the outcome of the case) overruled the express will of the people of California by overturning Proposition 8, which affirmed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.
Instead of recognizing the federal courts' destructive role in the marriage issue, Ron Paul retreats to a libertarian position that denies 6,000 years of human history by saying government shouldn't involve itself in marriage. I'm afraid you just can't put the genie back in the bottle. Government has been involved in marriage for thousands of years – and in the United States since its founding.
I could continue with more examples of Ron Paul's ostrich-like constitutional views.
Wait and see what will happen if this ego-maniac in chief gets re-elected and achieves his objective to obliterate America and turn it into a communist nation. As he proudly boasted at an April, 2011, fundraising event, “I have had the most successful legislative initiative of any president over the last 50 years.”
One term in office seems to not be enough to find out what Obama stands for and to see that all his promises to those who had elected him have been a failure. He is seeking another. Another for what? Failed economic policies, high unemployment, poor record on human rights, and his unwavering loyalty to China — all betray his deep-seated Marxist-socialist convictions and beliefs.
Can the United States survive Obama’s second term? Will it turn out to be yet another attempt to destroy this country? Will the American people give Obama another four years in office to complete his destructive experiment by throwing this country’s economy and defense at the mercy of the People’s Republic of China?
While clamoring for closer cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, Obama actually does everything in his power to set them apart.
My hope is that the American people are too smart to be fooled again by Obama’s treacherous promises. They will finally understand and reject Obama’s policies so fatal to this country. They will vote him out of office by making another presidential choice.
WND's Corsi Is Out To Destroy Those Who Ridiculed Birthers (Like Him) Topic: WorldNetDaily
Apparently, Jerome Corsi's disdain for people who ridiculed birthers like himself is exploding into all-out war -- and, it seems, libel.
In a June 16 WND article, Corsi declares war on one such person:
At the center of the network of Obama radical activists who forged and distributed a fraudulent Kenyan birth certificate in August 2009 was former California lawyer William L. Bryan.
Bryan posts as an Obama operative under the username "PJ Foggy" and lives in Raleigh, N.C., where he runs a flower shop.
Under the cover of his username, Bryan and his associates have engaged in an aggressive campaign to disrupt any and all attempts to pursue legal challenges to Obama's eligibility, while seeking to ridicule in vile and abusive terms those who dare advance or support publicly such legal efforts.
In a manner reminiscent of Donald Segretti's dirty tricks during the Watergate era, interfering in the 1970s with the political campaigns of such Democratic Party presidential hopefuls as then-Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine, Bryan and his associates have utilized the Internet to plan and promote their disruptive name-calling efforts.
Just a couple problems with Corsi's vengeful attack. Bryan says "There was never any time in which the State Bar of California even suggested disbarment as a punishment." Further, according to a Facebook response by Bryan at the end of Corsi's article, Corsi also apparently violated Bryan's privacy by including a picture of his children in the article, as well as "called for his 4560 Facebook friends to harass me and gave them enough info to find the phone number and address of my flower shop, where several innocent women who work there are terrified."
All this, by the way, seems to stem from Corsi and WND getting suckered by a fake "Kenyan birth certificate" for Obama. Corsi, by the way, has yet to explain how he and WND went from claiming that Kenyan documents proved the certificate was real to claiming that Kenyan documents proved it wasn't. But that's the kind of thing that happens when you publish something bothering to confirm its veracity beforehand, which WND did here.
A June 17 WND article (curiously unbylined but will be presumed to have been written by Corsi until proven otherwise) attacks "A radical leftist sidekick of Bill Bryan." As with Bryan, Corsi provides no evidence that this person is "radical" other than opposing Corsi's birther agenda.
Corsi even slips in a plug for Larry Sinclair, who "claims in a book entitled 'Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder' that Obama, when he was an Illinois state senator, committed homosexual acts with him while the two were using cocaine" -- even including a link to Sinclair's book at Amazon.com. Sinclair is a WND darling whose claims (which, like the fake birth certificate, WND made no attempt to verify before publishing) have been utterly discredited, though that has not stopped Corsi from hinting that they are true.
Does Corsi's war against his critics mean that we are his next target? After all, we've exposed his buffoonery in exposing the fraud of documents he obtained in Kenya in an attempt to smear Obama, as well as his ignorance about economics and the personal vendetta he waged in WND against a co-author who endorsed a presidential candidate Corsi didn't like.
So, yeah, using WND to settle personal scores is very Corsi (not to mention very Joseph Farah). We'd be a bit more worried about this unhinged vengenace if we didn't know WND's track record on libel lawsuits.
AIM's Kincaid Thinks He's Bob Woodward (And Is Conspiring With Foreigners) Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid is trying to gin up outrage over a non-scandal -- the claim that CIA director and secretary of defense nominee Leon Panetta is somehow disqualifed for both jobs because he purportedly had "had a close and personal relationship with a member of the Communist Party by the name of Hugh DeLacy, whose record included meeting with communist espionage agents." He writes in a June 14 AIM article:
Rather than have boxes of material dumped on us, as happened in the case of Palin, we have researched hard-to-find Congressional hearings, conducted interviews and examined clippings from decades ago, university archives and the Congressional Record. It’s the kind of reporting that Bob Woodward of the Post was known for during Watergate.
Funny, we thought Woodward was best known in Watergate for meeting with a secret source in a parking garage. Is Kincaid doing that?
Not really -- he's just red-baiting. And he's doing something else as well -- he's collaborating with a foreign national to bring down an American official.
Kincaid states that he is working with "my friend and associate Trevor Loudon" to attack Panetta. Loudon, right-wing activist, is a resident and citizen of New Zealand who is obsessed with communism and has fed many of Aaron Klein's guilt-by-association attacks on President Obama and his advisers. (Klein is repeating this attack on Panetta as well, crediting Loudon but not Kincaid.)
Why is Kincaid conspiring with foreigners to attack Americans? Does he hate America that much?
Newsmax's Hirsen Also Invents Stewart Racism, Ignores Racism of Fox Host Topic: Newsmax
NewsBusters isn't the only one to invent a racism scandal. Newsmax's James Hirsen follows in its footsteps by writing in a June 13 article:
Recently, “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart made Herman Cain the butt of his unimaginative jokes, and his patter about the GOP presidential contender turned out to be not so coded.
Stewart aired video footage of Cain. The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO and current GOP presidential candidate was addressing the issue of the thousands of pages of Democrat legislation that admittedly was not read by them prior to passage. Cain said that bills should be limited to three pages.
After showing the footage, the Comedy Central star displayed a billboard that read: “Herman Cain 2012 — I Don’t Like to Read.”
The racist threads woven into this comedic sketch are that the black man has difficulty reading and lacks intelligence. Neither Jesse Jackson nor Al Sharpton saw fit to call a press conference.
As with NewsBusters, Hirsen's "racist threads" are imaginary. And as with NewsBusters, Hirsen has been silent about actual "racist threads" in Fox News host Eric Bolling's "hoodlum in the hizzouse" attacks on President Obama.
It seems Hirsen would rather invent racism accusations about his political enemies than condemn actual racism among his allies. Just like NewsBusters.
WorldNetDaily columnist is proud to let his seething hatred of the Obamas wave in public. In the wake of his assertions that the Obamas are worse and polio and should be "dragged thru the streets," Massie responds to critics in an expanded tweet:
finally doofus libs that r haunting over our tweets got 1 of my quotes rite bho n his big saddle butt wife r worse things 4 nation since polio - i hope they don't expect me 2 feel bad or ashamed by wat i said - i'd like 2c them bothdragged out of the w/h n hauled off 2 jail 4 crimes against the Constitution violating our personal liberties - liberal jackos dont get upset when Justice Thomas, Michelle Malkin, or other conservatives of men and women are attacked by their minions - bho and buttzilla r marxists and racists - i didn't make it up all u have 2 is play back her own words - having said that I think the entire lot of them shud be hauled off 2 a penal colony n i hope they dont like wat i'm saying
NewsBusters Invents Racism Charge, Ignores Actual Racism On Fox Topic: NewsBusters
Last week, we noted how NewsBusters invented the claim that a joke about Herman Cain by Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" was "racially charged" even though no evidence was presented to support the claim. When it comes to actual racially charged statements on a ideologically simpatico channel, however, NewsBusters isn't so quick to rush to judgment.
While Media Research Center employee Geoffrey Dickens was writing his baseless attack on Stewart, Eric Bolling was using the June 10 edition of his Fox Business show "Follow the Money" to say of a meeting between President Obama and the president of Gabon: "It's not the first time he's had a hoodlum in the hizzouse." Bolling repeated the point later in the show, saying, "It's not the first time he's had a hood in the big crib." Bolling later said, "So what's with all the hoods in the hizzy?"
This isn't the first time Bolling has used disparaging, racially charged rhetoric to smear Obama; he previously wrote that Obama was "chugging 40's in IRE while tornadoes ravage MO."
NewsBusters got all hot and bothered a few weeks ago when liberal Ed Schultz said on his radio showthat conservative Laura Ingraham was a "right-wing slut" -- even demanding that he be suspended from his MSNBC show for the remarks, even though they never appeared there. They got what they wanted, and expressed pride that Schultz was "humiliated" into an issuing a apology.
Bolling, by contrast, spent a mere 14 seconds disingenously claiming that he went "a little fast and loose with the language," even though his racially charged statements appeared in apparently scripted, pre-taped segments.
Where's NewsBusters' outrage? Or is it too busy inventing more bogus racism allegations against liberals to bother?
A Fluffing Nexus for Newsmax's Kessler Topic: Newsmax
This must have been nirvana for Ronald Kessler: writing a June 13 Newsmax column about how one of his favorite people, National Rifle Association president David Keene, is slobbering all over one of his other favorite people, Mitt Romney.
WorldNetDaily wants you to think that Michele Bachmann really likes WND.
About an hour after Bachmann announced during the June 13 Republican presidential debate on CNN that she had filed papers for her candidacy, a WND article by Joe Kovacs asserted that she, after Herman Cain, was "the second Republican contender to have virtually announced their candidacies previously in WND."
Kovacs is taking some liberties with the facts, as WND is wont to do. The only evidence Kovacs provides that Bachmann "virtually announced" her candidacy at WND is an August 2009 article in which she, according to Kovacs, "hinted she was interested in the presidency."
Expressing interest in running for president is not an announcement of same. It's not even a "virtual announcement" of same. WND is simply trying to convince its readers that it's relevant as it pisses away what's left of its credibility on desperately trying to prove that the birth certificate President Obama released is fake.
Oh, and speaking of Cain: It's worth noting that while Fox News suspended paid commentators Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum when their presidential ambitions became clear, Cain remains a (presumbly paid) WND columnist even after announcing his candidacy -- indeed, WND published Cain's column making that announcement. WND, it seems, can't even be bothered to keep up the pretense anymore that it's a real news organization.
NEW ARTICLE: Shapiro the Shrill Topic: CNSNews.com
Syndicated right-wing columnist Ben Shapiro not only has a full-blown case of Obama Derangement Syndrome, he also pushes false and misleading claims in his column -- dishonesty that the subjects of his new book know all too well. Read more >>
Farah Freaks Out, Stands With Gay-Haters At AFA Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah goes into freak-out mode in his June 15 WorldNetDaily column, defending Texas Gov. Rick Perry's plans for "a day of prayer and fasting for our nation to seek God's guidance and wisdom in addressing the challenges that face our communities, states and nation" by relying on thin-skinned ad hominem attacks.
Farah was appalled that a Houston Chronicle editorial would criticize Perry's prayer event, accusing the paper of trading in "guilt by association and outright lies":
For instance, the Houston Chronicle challenges the sponsor of the event, the American Family Association, by saying, "There could hardly be a more divisive, unforgiving group. …" On what basis does it form this assumption? "According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which names AFA a hate group, it's intolerant of gays and other religions and its leaders make outrageous claims, including that 'homosexuals are the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities' and that homosexuality will usher in a 'grotesque culture' that will include 'quick encounters in the middle school boys' restroom.'"
That's the Houston Chronicle's authority on the AFA – the Southern Poverty Law Center. Do you know who else this group, long-ago discredited as nothing more than a fear-mongering fund-raising machine, lists as haters and hate groups? Here's a partial list: me, WND, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, the tea-party movement, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Gun Owners of America, the Family Research Council, Judge Andrew Napolitano, James Dobson, Rep. Paul Broun and Rep. Ron Paul.
In other words, if you are an effective, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-Constitution American, you are probably on one of the SPLC's "hate" lists. And that's why AFA is there.
That the Houston Chronicle and other esteemed press outlets would use the SPLC as a source to mischaracterize the American Family Association is an indictment of who is writing and editing news stories and editorials for the major media – that's all.
Who is the SPLC? I think Reason writer Jesse Walker may have said it best when he wrote: "The Southern Poverty Law Center … would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds."
Founder Morris Dees' stock-in-trade is raising hundreds of millions of dollars through fanning the flames of phantom threats posed almost exclusively by those who love America and its Constitution. He also files lots of lawsuits, sometimes even on behalf of real victims of racism, and pockets most of the money raised through heart-wrenching direct-mail pitches.
The most famous example was a judgment he won for a black woman whose son was killed by the Ku Klux Klan. While Dees and company raised $9 million sending out solicitation letters featuring a gruesome picture of the victim, the mom received a total of $51,875 in the settlement. Dees pays himself more than $280,000 a year from the "charity."
Do you get the picture?
Nnotice that at no point does Farah actually disprove anything the SPLC or the Chronicle said about the AFA -- he simply bashed the SPLC.
Farah and WND have tangled with the SPLC before, falsely claiming that the SPLC accused WND of engaging in "violent rhetoric" and falsely denying the SPLC's claim that WND engages in "conspiracy journalism."
CNS' Starr Keeps Shilling for Oil Industry Topic: CNSNews.com
A couple weeks back, we noted how CNSNews.com's Penny Starr has become a reliable shill for the oil industry -- presumably because of the hundreds of thousands of dollars ExxonMobil has given to CNS' parent, the Media Research Center.
Starr turns in another sycophantic effort in a June 10 article uncritically repeating claims by American Petroleum Institute officials in favor of a new U.S.-Canada oil pipeline. Only two paragraphs mention EPA concerns about the pipeline, while Starr devotes a whopping 12 paragraphs to the API's arguments in favor of it.
That bias, it seems, is what ExxonMobil is paying for.
Mychal Massie writes in his June 14 WorldNetDaily column:
In his column, "2nd 'black president' likely to build on legacy of first," Jack Cashill wrote, "Indeed, in his audio book, 'More Than Sex: The Secrets of Bill and Hillary Clinton,' Arkansas state trooper Larry Patterson contends that Clinton referred to Jesse Jackson, among others, as a 'nigger' as late as 1992 and routinely tolerated racial slurs by others. Patterson is not alone in making this charge."
Of course, as Cashill's title infers, Clinton went on to become known, amongst other things, as America's first black president. But their hateful comments and tolerances pale in comparison to the rabid Marxist mindset of Michelle Obama and her intentionally polarizing speeches.
In fact, Patterson has no credibility as a Clinton accuser.
As we've detailed, Gene Lyons and Joe Conason point out in their book "The Hunting of the President" that Patterson "was said to harbor a grudge" against Clinton "for going to Washington without setting [him and a fellow state trooper] up in federal jobs" and because he didn't push a bill funding a state police lobbying group Patterson had helped to found through mandatory dues from state troopers' paychecks. Lyons and Conason also quote Patterson's former supervisor as saying Patterson's "mentality and objective in life was to sleep with as many women as he could. You could not have a conversation with Larry Patterson more than five minutes that sex didn't enter into it and whose britches he was trying to get in. ... If Bill Clinton had a meeting with a woman behind closed doors, Larry assumed it was for the purpose of sex, because that's what it would have been if he had been there."
Further, as we've also noted, Patterson and the other anti-Clinton Arkansas troopers backed away from their lurid claims when placed under oath.
It's rather sad that Massie feels he has to stoop to rehashing ancient claims from a discredited, disgruntled accuser in order to fuel his hatred of Michelle Obama. (It doesn't exactly enhance Cashill's credibility, either.)
Meanwhile, Massie's hatred of the Obama's has festered on Twitter: